Winning

I am confused by winning in Iraq. I just read another letter to the editor where the person equated withdrawl with "cutting and running" and that the United States should not leave Iraq or draw down troops until we "win."

What constitutes winning? Is it peace in Iraq? Is it no more dead American troops? Is it US domination of the country so that violence gets to a manageable level?

President Bush hasn't really defined "winning" or "finishing the job" or whatever else the ultimate goal is in Iraq. If the goal in Iraq was democracy, well, its done. They had free and fair elections. That it resulted in a civil way is a completely different problem. I would prefer to have US troops intervene in the civil war (if that is what it is) in Darfur. At least there we have a defined goal and a defined enemy. In Iraq, you help Shiites one day and Sunnis the next and they both hate you for the day before. It's a no-win situation.

The solution in Iraq is political and not military. Take a lesson from Yugoslavia and divide the country. The Kurds are doing quite well without the Shiites or Sunnis in there protected northern enclave. Divide Iraq into three zones, share the oil revenues and get the hell out. Divide and conquer. Iraq as a nation is fiction of British colonialism. Better to have the uneasy peace between Pakistan and India (another case of dividing along ethnic and religious lines) than an ongoing civil war (and yes it is a civil war).